1. When it comes to health insurance, collectivism is the nature of the beast. There is no insurance without it. Calling an incentive a disincentive is also rather perverse. Without tax breaks for employer provided health care, millions more would do without coverage. That’s no solution. What do you have against socialism, anyway?
2. Medicare represents a vast improvement in living standards for most elderly persons. A broader public plan would likewise represent a vast improvement in living standards for most currently uninsured persons. The benefit of socialized medicine for cost control, access to care, and patient outcomes is well supported by the state of health care in Europe.
3. The chimera of “affordable individual health insurance” is not an argument.
4. The problems you have identified with private for-profit insurance are related to the perverse incentives of profit in this sector. Health insurance should be a non-profit enterprise, as should police and fire protection. People die in the current system so that others can make more money. This is a perversity that would not exist without the profit motive. Don’t try to blame socialism for the collateral damage inherent in a capitalist system. That’s just sad.
5. The bottom line is that the market is not the best answer to every problem, despite your protests to the contrary. “Socialism” in the form of pooling our resources is sometimes the best solution, and government is sometimes a very good mechanism for this. There is a reason that we have a government, and it is to do what the market cannot. Effective and affordable health care for all Americans will not happen without further government action. It is perverse for a government that has publicly funded fire and police systems designed to protect the property of all citizens to be restrained from providing the corollary services to protect the very lives of the people.
Neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism is desirable. In the case of health care, socialist solutions are the best solutions.
Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Health Care Lies
Here's my point-by-point reply:
1. ObamaCare’s centerpiece, a Medicare-like “public option,” would cause millions of Americans to lose their employer-provided health insurance.
Millions of Americans have already lost, or never had, employer-provided health insurance. Moreover, those who lose their employer-provided health insurance will be able to get insurance, regardless of their income or pre-existing conditions. A "public option" might cause some reduction in employer provided health care, but the figure cited (118 million) from the Lewin Group is absurdly high. Perhaps a consequence of the Lewin Group's status as a wholly-owned arm of the health care industry?
2. Government-run health care would lead to rationing.
Private health care has already led to rationing, but not on a rational basis. Denying care is the primary method of reducing costs practiced by private insurers. Right now, care is rationed based on ability to pay, and the decisions of insurance executives. Increased competition and choice does not preclude a public option, and a public option does not require a reduction in care to reduce costs - just a reduction in the profit motive as the primary driver of health care.
3. ObamaCare would cost a fortune, and we’re already running higher deficits than during the Great Depression.
ObamaCare would "bend the curve" in the long term, and make it possible for health care to survive the retiring boomers who would otherwise break it. We are running higher deficits than ever because the last eight years were a non-stop assault on the US economy and government. It takes a lot of money to repair the kind of damage done by the Bush administration.
Even so, ObamaCare will expand health coverage, reduce health care expenditures, and remove the long-term risk of insolvency in Medicare. Arbitrarily reducing deficits in the midst of a financial crisis is a proven loser.
4. ObamaCare would ruin private insurance.
ObamaCare does not ruin private insurance. It simply gives consumers another choice, and prevents gaps in coverage due to job loss or pre-existing conditions. The "public option" uses government to efficiently cover care for millions of Americans, as is currently done by Medicare. There is no evidence that a public option would reduce the quality of private care - it is much more likely that private competition will motivate improvements in care as private companies work to compete.
5. ObamaCare would encourage people to leave the medical profession.
This is absurd. People do not go into the medical profession as a way to make themselves rich - and if they do, they should not be encouraged. It is much more likely that employment in the health sector would be much higher, because with more people covered by insurance, there would be more people with access to care. There is no reason to believe that improved and expanded insurance coverage would be a deterrent to those interested in practicing medicine.
6. In addition to increasing deficits, ObamaCare would increase overall health costs.
Your "study" shows nothing about the overall costs of health care. You do not address any of the collateral benefits of having health coverage, and do not recognize the impact of demographics on program costs.
In short, you have no evidence. Your supposed evidence simply shows how private insurers can make a bigger profit by denying care to millions of Americans. That's not evidence of anything about overall health costs.
7. Based on Medicare’s track record, ObamaCare’s costs would almost certainly exceed estimates.
ObamaCare could exceed cost estimates by a very large margin and still be much more cost-effective than our current system.
8. ObamaCare would create a two-tiered health-care system, to the detriment of the middle class.
We already have a two-tiered health-care system, to the detriment of the middle and lower classes. The rich will always get whatever care they want, but for the middle class health reform would at least preserve access to care that is often jeopardized in our current system. There is again, no evidence that the middle class would suffer worse health under a public system, but plenty of evidence from overseas that public health care is more effective and efficient than our private system.
9. ObamaCare would kill the prospects for real reform.
No real reform has been forthcoming for some time - now is the best chance we will ever have. ObamaCare ends unfair practices that impact the uninsured, and encourages a more vibrant free market in which consumers can shop for value - for the best care, at the best prices. Rather than being excluded from care due to pre-existing conditions, or compelled to join the plan of an employer, under ObamaCare the choice would be restored to each of us.
ObamaCare is real reform.
10. The centralization of power in Washington saps the strength of our citizenry and slowly deprives us of liberty.
This is just a tag line to get folks interested in your "think-tank". Liberty without life is not very valuable - health care reform serves the general welfare, very much in keeping with the spirit of the founders. ObamaCare is about balancing the strength of the citizenry against the strength of private interests that currently are not serving the public interest.
Corporations have an obligation to be good citizens - if they cannot do so voluntarily, it is the place of government to set them straight. We the People grant the corporate charter, and have every right to revoke it.
We need ObamaCare.
1. ObamaCare’s centerpiece, a Medicare-like “public option,” would cause millions of Americans to lose their employer-provided health insurance.
Millions of Americans have already lost, or never had, employer-provided health insurance. Moreover, those who lose their employer-provided health insurance will be able to get insurance, regardless of their income or pre-existing conditions. A "public option" might cause some reduction in employer provided health care, but the figure cited (118 million) from the Lewin Group is absurdly high. Perhaps a consequence of the Lewin Group's status as a wholly-owned arm of the health care industry?
2. Government-run health care would lead to rationing.
Private health care has already led to rationing, but not on a rational basis. Denying care is the primary method of reducing costs practiced by private insurers. Right now, care is rationed based on ability to pay, and the decisions of insurance executives. Increased competition and choice does not preclude a public option, and a public option does not require a reduction in care to reduce costs - just a reduction in the profit motive as the primary driver of health care.
3. ObamaCare would cost a fortune, and we’re already running higher deficits than during the Great Depression.
ObamaCare would "bend the curve" in the long term, and make it possible for health care to survive the retiring boomers who would otherwise break it. We are running higher deficits than ever because the last eight years were a non-stop assault on the US economy and government. It takes a lot of money to repair the kind of damage done by the Bush administration.
Even so, ObamaCare will expand health coverage, reduce health care expenditures, and remove the long-term risk of insolvency in Medicare. Arbitrarily reducing deficits in the midst of a financial crisis is a proven loser.
4. ObamaCare would ruin private insurance.
ObamaCare does not ruin private insurance. It simply gives consumers another choice, and prevents gaps in coverage due to job loss or pre-existing conditions. The "public option" uses government to efficiently cover care for millions of Americans, as is currently done by Medicare. There is no evidence that a public option would reduce the quality of private care - it is much more likely that private competition will motivate improvements in care as private companies work to compete.
5. ObamaCare would encourage people to leave the medical profession.
This is absurd. People do not go into the medical profession as a way to make themselves rich - and if they do, they should not be encouraged. It is much more likely that employment in the health sector would be much higher, because with more people covered by insurance, there would be more people with access to care. There is no reason to believe that improved and expanded insurance coverage would be a deterrent to those interested in practicing medicine.
6. In addition to increasing deficits, ObamaCare would increase overall health costs.
Your "study" shows nothing about the overall costs of health care. You do not address any of the collateral benefits of having health coverage, and do not recognize the impact of demographics on program costs.
In short, you have no evidence. Your supposed evidence simply shows how private insurers can make a bigger profit by denying care to millions of Americans. That's not evidence of anything about overall health costs.
7. Based on Medicare’s track record, ObamaCare’s costs would almost certainly exceed estimates.
ObamaCare could exceed cost estimates by a very large margin and still be much more cost-effective than our current system.
8. ObamaCare would create a two-tiered health-care system, to the detriment of the middle class.
We already have a two-tiered health-care system, to the detriment of the middle and lower classes. The rich will always get whatever care they want, but for the middle class health reform would at least preserve access to care that is often jeopardized in our current system. There is again, no evidence that the middle class would suffer worse health under a public system, but plenty of evidence from overseas that public health care is more effective and efficient than our private system.
9. ObamaCare would kill the prospects for real reform.
No real reform has been forthcoming for some time - now is the best chance we will ever have. ObamaCare ends unfair practices that impact the uninsured, and encourages a more vibrant free market in which consumers can shop for value - for the best care, at the best prices. Rather than being excluded from care due to pre-existing conditions, or compelled to join the plan of an employer, under ObamaCare the choice would be restored to each of us.
ObamaCare is real reform.
10. The centralization of power in Washington saps the strength of our citizenry and slowly deprives us of liberty.
This is just a tag line to get folks interested in your "think-tank". Liberty without life is not very valuable - health care reform serves the general welfare, very much in keeping with the spirit of the founders. ObamaCare is about balancing the strength of the citizenry against the strength of private interests that currently are not serving the public interest.
Corporations have an obligation to be good citizens - if they cannot do so voluntarily, it is the place of government to set them straight. We the People grant the corporate charter, and have every right to revoke it.
We need ObamaCare.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
The Density of Palin: Black Hole of Media Intelligence
I’m waiting for Palin to present her alternative health care reform plan.
But I’m not holding my breath.
She’s got nothing to offer here. I don’t see anyone flummoxed, just a big chunk of the GOP that is brain-dead and/or brain-washed into buying whatever this woman has for sale.
“Death panels” are not part of this legislation, and are nothing but an inflammatory rhetorical device without basis in fact – a definition that fits Palin herself as well.
But I’m not holding my breath.
She’s got nothing to offer here. I don’t see anyone flummoxed, just a big chunk of the GOP that is brain-dead and/or brain-washed into buying whatever this woman has for sale.
“Death panels” are not part of this legislation, and are nothing but an inflammatory rhetorical device without basis in fact – a definition that fits Palin herself as well.
Waste is not the absence of profit
Without government intervention in the health care market, most Americans would see no benefit from the advances in medical technology over the past fifty years. There is plenty of waste in a private market, but not all of this waste is in the form of money. Human potential is also wasted in the private system, that does not value human beings, but instead protects merely their money.
I want an option for medical coverage that doesn’t line the pockets of these folks, thanks.
I want an option for medical coverage that doesn’t line the pockets of these folks, thanks.
Rationing in Oregon? Good
Without the public option, rationing is worse. To call the situation in Oregon as nightmare is to misunderstand the nature and extent of the issues with our health care system. Denial of care is much more common and insidious when practiced for profit. I’d take Oregon’s system over a purely private system any day.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Abortion is health care! PJM Exclusive!
It’s pretty clear the author does not understand the principles he espouses.
If you really think that health care decisions should be made by the doctor and patient, covering abortion seems pretty logical. Are you sure that you believe that placing “bureaucrats in Washington in charge of your health care options” is not what you are advocating?
It also seems the author doesn’t understand that taxes are not apportioned according to taxpayer earmarks.
I am an American morally opposed to pointless foreign wars – but I continue to pay my taxes because I understand that it is the legislative process that makes changes in policy – not petulance. Abortions should not be treated differently from other medical procedures. Coverage that does not include abortion is deficient – a specific exclusion is simply bad medicine. If you don’t want to pay taxes, that’s your call. But compromising reproductive health care for political purposes is, in the author’s own words, “wrong”. Leave the health care decisions to the doctor and patient.
Government-owned health care will place bureaucrats in Washington in charge of your health care options. This is wrong. Health care decisions must be made by you and your doctor.
If you really think that health care decisions should be made by the doctor and patient, covering abortion seems pretty logical. Are you sure that you believe that placing “bureaucrats in Washington in charge of your health care options” is not what you are advocating?
It also seems the author doesn’t understand that taxes are not apportioned according to taxpayer earmarks.
Americans who are morally opposed to abortion should not have to pay for abortions with their tax dollars against their will.
I am an American morally opposed to pointless foreign wars – but I continue to pay my taxes because I understand that it is the legislative process that makes changes in policy – not petulance. Abortions should not be treated differently from other medical procedures. Coverage that does not include abortion is deficient – a specific exclusion is simply bad medicine. If you don’t want to pay taxes, that’s your call. But compromising reproductive health care for political purposes is, in the author’s own words, “wrong”. Leave the health care decisions to the doctor and patient.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Bureaucrats from here to eternity...
In the near future, a nameless bureaucrat may determine what kind of medical treatment you receive.
I hate to be the one to tell you this: they already do. They work at the HMO.
Why should I prefer a bureaucrat with a profit motive, rather than one with a public health motive?
That's the question I want a clear answer to.
I hate to be the one to tell you this: they already do. They work at the HMO.
Why should I prefer a bureaucrat with a profit motive, rather than one with a public health motive?
That's the question I want a clear answer to.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Debating the Bottom Line in Health Care
The bottom line in the health care debate is that America collectively spends too much money on health care, and does not get the best care possible. A large portion of the public has not been served by the current market in health insurance, and one would expect this problem to continue under any plan that does not mandate universal coverage. Depending on employers (and hence employment) to secure health coverage is a poor model for health coverage, and it is past time that cradle to grave coverage be part of every American’s birthright. Our health system is broken, and the market is not going to fix it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
